|
Yeah so here's a few ideas.
(1) Be really clear on how all the mechanics work before the game and then stick to it - people's deck designs depend dramatically on what abilities they can or cannot use when. This isn't a criticism of this game, since it was the first one and that wasn't possible. I think this game was handled well. But next game can be better since we have some understanding to build off of.
(2) As for instants, counterspells, etcetera. I feel like having some instant-speed abilities but not others just doesn't really work out; it's both confusing for mtg newbs and confusing for experienced players. I would say there's a few options:
-- Go to only sorcery speed for all spells an abilities.
-- Go to what I'm calling "modified sorcery speed". This would be as follows:
---- no "in response" abilities.
---- All spells and abilities resolve as soon as they are cast.
---- Sorceries can only be cast during the main phases
---- Instants and instant-speed creature abilities can be cast during the main phase and will resolve as soon as they are cast, unless the player specifies that they want to resolve them during the attack phase (see below).
---- Players can also cast instants and instant-speed creature abilities to resolve as follows during the attack phase:
------- (1) at the start of the attack phase, as soon as the main phase has ended
------- (2) After attackers are delcared, but before blockers are declared
------- (3) After blockers are declared, but before damage goes on the stack
------- (4) After damage goes on the stack, but before it resolves
------- (5) After damage resolves, at the end of the attack phase right before the start of the next main phase.
---- These abilities can be cast at any time, including during the main phase. Players will play the card and specify "to resolve at time (1) during the attack phase". Then when that time comes around, the host will resolve the spells in the order they were cast. There is no stack, just a bunch of abilities that resolve at certain points in time.
---- This would use the same "three-deadline" system (main phase, attack, and block) that we had in the last MTG mafia. I think that was a promising system; definitely better than only having two deadlines, and also probably better than having more than three deadlines since at a certain point time zones make the thing really complicated.
---- I think this method allows more variety in viable decks and is more similar to actual MTG. For example, you could save a creature growth or destruction spell for after blockers are declared, you can use abilities that move damage around, etcetera.
---- This format would still not allow counterspells, since everything cast during the main phase just resolves when it is cast.
-- The last option would be to have a "real-time" priority system. This would only work either for a game with a really heavy activity commitment. Whenever anyone cast any spell, there would be a period during which priority would pass around the board before it resolved, during which people could counter it. Either there would be a specific amount of time during which people could cast stuff before the spell resolved, or each player in turn would have to agree to pass priority before it resolved. If you do the "agree to pass priority" method you would probably want lots of hydras so that someone would be around all the time.
I think the second option I outlined up there is a pretty good compromise.
|
Sorry for the late response.
@Strongandbig The first part of your 'modified sorcery speed' I've mostly put into play in the last game already, with the exception of player killing spells. I like the idea of players deciding when they want to have their instants resolve and I think I'll implement it next, with no reactions being possible of course. I think I'll use the second one for the next game.
@The rest I'm not sold on counterspells simply because it'd restrict playing time a lot in the main phase, and it's hard enough to get people active already.
|
On August 27 2012 09:50 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
Sorry for the late response.
@Strongandbig The first part of your 'modified sorcery speed' I've mostly put into play in the last game already, with the exception of player killing spells. I like the idea of players deciding when they want to have their instants resolve and I think I'll implement it next, with no reactions being possible of course. I think I'll use the second one for the next game.
@The rest I'm not sold on counterspells simply because it'd restrict playing time a lot in the main phase, and it's hard enough to get people active already.
Did you see my post about playing with 1 deck that everyone draws from? That way no one's deck is OP
|
On August 27 2012 11:00 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 09:50 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
Sorry for the late response.
@Strongandbig The first part of your 'modified sorcery speed' I've mostly put into play in the last game already, with the exception of player killing spells. I like the idea of players deciding when they want to have their instants resolve and I think I'll implement it next, with no reactions being possible of course. I think I'll use the second one for the next game.
@The rest I'm not sold on counterspells simply because it'd restrict playing time a lot in the main phase, and it's hard enough to get people active already. Did you see my post about playing with 1 deck that everyone draws from? That way no one's deck is OP
That might make for a slightly better mafia game strictly defined, but imo it would lose quite a bit of the fun of this game. Everyone would have the same goals with their mtg play, and I think that where this game gets its unique appeal is the interaction of the mtg play with the mafia play. I think that a really good deck-balancing process, which should be much more possible with all that we've learned from this game, would do just as well.
|
Yeah, I don't like that idea since it takes away from the uniqueness and the fun of playing with 'your own' deck.
|
Yeah, as much as I don't know how to improve this (I thought it was great, thought utterly confusing) unique decks need to stay. A lot of the weird fun came from the way the decks played out against one another.
|
I don't mean to be rude, but until you've actually played cube and look at the decklist and rules for it, it hurts to read your comments. It isn't like everyone is drawing from one "sliver" deck or a theme deck. and the rules adjusted would make for a very balanced mafia games with a lot of interesting and possible outcomes
|
On August 28 2012 07:41 Mattchew wrote:
I don't mean to be rude, but until you've actually played cube and look at the decklist and rules for it, it hurts to read your comments. It isn't like everyone is drawing from one "sliver" deck or a theme deck. and the rules adjusted would make for a very balanced mafia games with a lot of interesting and possible outcomes
that's not the point. we all like the customization and variety of designing our own decks. That's why we don't want to play a type-four-style cube. and a booster draft might be "fairer" but it would be a huge pain in the ass to organize and also not as fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
